Apps Script MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action is 'recoverable,' which is useful context about the tool's effect. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output might contain. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by a brief Args section. There's no wasted text, and the structure is logical. However, the Args section could be integrated more seamlessly, and it's slightly verbose for such a simple tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (a mutation with 2 parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is somewhat complete. It covers the basic action and parameters but lacks behavioral details like error handling or permissions. With no annotations and low schema coverage, it should do more to be fully adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description adds basic semantics for both parameters: 'user_google_email' is described as 'The user's Google email address' and 'file_id' as 'The file ID to trash.' This clarifies their roles but doesn't provide format examples, validation rules, or sourcing guidance. It partially compensates for the schema gap but not fully.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Move a file to trash in Google Drive (recoverable).' It specifies the verb ('move'), resource ('file'), and location ('trash'), and distinguishes it from siblings like delete_drive_file_tool by noting recoverability. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other trash-related tools (none listed), so it's not a perfect 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over delete_drive_file_tool (which likely permanently deletes) or other file management tools, nor does it specify prerequisites like authentication or permissions. The only implied usage is for trashing files, but no explicit context is given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.